WI: SecDef Nixon?

Wolfpaw

Banned
Prior to the 1956 election, Eisenhower offered the post of Secretary of Defense to Richard Nixon so that he could run with Robert Anderson. As we all know, Nixon opted to stay VP and Anderson went on to become Secretary of the Treasury.

So what if Nixon had taken the post? How would that have panned out?
 
That's a career dead-ender, because there is no way Nixon could retain Pentagon support against Rocky and Barry. In 1960 the GOP would not nominate a Southerner- so Anderson is out. It would be a three-way battle, and since Ike doesn't like Rocky or Barry, Nixon ekes out a victory and names Anderson or Hugh Scott as his running mate. Butterflies could mean a Nixon victory, and with SecDef Nixon and General Ike on the GOP side, JFK won't be mouthing off about "missile gap" BS.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Random thought, what if Eisenhower hadn't chosen Nixon in '52? Would he have offered him the SecDef post or is Dick way too inexperienced? (I always found it weird that Charles E. Wilson was chosen.)
 
Too inexperienced. For a while, auto executives were in vogue for the Pentagon, namely Charlie Wilson and Bob McNamara. (Cue catcalls and rude hand gestures :p)
 
Perhaps. But running the Pentagon requires an iron-willed skilled bureaucratic infighter. That's why JFK picked McNamara, and, in the second term, would've picked Bobby. Ditto for Laird, Cap Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney and Rummy.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Too inexperienced. For a while, auto executives were in vogue for the Pentagon
I always found that to be a tad queer, to be honest. Who would be a more "standard" SecDef for Eisenhower to pick? I would say somebody like Marshall, but he's disqualified for not being out of the service long enough (not to mention being disliked by much of the nation thanks to Tail-Gunner Joe).
 
Ike was largely his own SecDef (after all, he knows more than the JCS does), the actual one would be a paper-pusher. As long as the person was a skilled administrator, it doesn't really matter.
 
OOC/Wolfpaw: None, for similar reasons to McCain. Romney was born to US citizens, therefore he qualifies under the Constitution. Though combined with his Mormonism, I could easily see a 1960s Birther movement arise. :eek:
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
OOC/Wolfpaw: None, for similar reasons to McCain. Romney was born to US citizens, therefore he qualifies under the Constitution.
Oh my god, duh. Wow, I...I really need to lay off of the JWBL :eek:
Though combined with his Mormonism, I could easily see a 1960s Birther movement arise. :eek:
I want this timeline. NOW.

But back to the topic, who would be a more "standard" choice for SecDef in '52?
 
Walter Bedell Smith, Ike's former Chief of Staff, or Bob Lovett. As I said, Ike will be his own SecDef for obvious reasons.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Walter Bedell Smith, Ike's former Chief of Staff, or Bob Lovett. As I said, Ike will be his own SecDef for obvious reasons.
Smith technically wouldn't be eligible since the 10 year interval between leaving military service and becoming SecDef hasn't passed yet. Or would Congress just ignore that "shall not be approved" bit of the 1950 legislation allowing Marshall to be SecDef and pass special legislation granting another exception?

And wouldn't a lot of Republicans object to Ike keeping on Truman's SecDef? I mean, a lot of people viewed Lovett as responsible for the debacle in Korea. I suppose the Republicans would eventually go for it since it is Ike, after all, but wouldn't they kick up a nasty fuss? We have to remember that this is all occurring at a time when the Old Right still held lot of sway in the G.O.P., so they may pressure Eisenhower to pick somebody else.
 
This is a very interesting premise, though I don't know if it would be an absolute career killer for Nixon. From what I recall, Eisenhower also considered picking Massachusetts Governor Christian Herter for the VP spot in '56 because he wasn't as universally hated by Democrats on the hill. Let's say that Ike picks Herter and Nixon goes to Secretary of Defense.

Herter probably won't run in 1960, because for the most part, the Vice Presidency wasn't considered the POTUS' direct successor until Nixon built the office up and ran of his own accord in 1960. Without a strong candidate announcing right out of the gate, Rocky and Goldwater announce as well, and Nixon makes his bid from the center from within the Pentagon. He probably wins the nomination, but may lose the general to Kennedy, who could blame Nixon for the imaginary 'missile gap' that helped him clench the election IOTL.

After that, maybe Nixon wins the Governorship in 1962 thanks to butterflies? His career could turnout the same way, really, though he'd be much more learned on military issues and management than he was IOTL. How might that effect a Nixon Presidency in the late sixties and early seventies, especially with regard to Vietnam? Might Nixon move to more strongly escalate the war or change gears completely?
 
I don't see Nixon's views being altered that much. To have Nixon win in 1960 is quite easy: pick Sen. Hugh Scott (PA) who is a Catholic (perhaps bigots calm down a bit with Catholics on both tickets), combative and has the ability to swing PA's 32 EV into the GOP column. Wear proper makeup for the debate, and focus on swing states, not a 50-state strategy. Also- show some spark at the debate. His OTL performance reminds me of both Gordon Brown in May and RFK v. Reagan in '67. Brown's refrain was "I agree with Nick", Nixon's was "I do not question Senator Kennedy's sincerity, but...". Wield the damn switchblade. It reminds me of RFK's '67 performance in that both were rather limp and deferential in contrast to their usual combative, acid-tongued selves. Finally, Nixon was far better known than Kennedy politically. 1956 was to JFK as 2004 was for Obama- the moment to burst on the national spotlight. (Kennedys-as-celebs and Kennedys-as-national pols are separate, one began in the '30s, the other in the mid '50s).
 
Last edited:
Top